|
Further Breakdown on Boston-Chicago |
|
|
|
|
|
Follow me @jaeckel
I did a little bit more poking around in the statistics of these playoffs and found something kind of telling about the Boston-Chicago matchup. And it’s something that points to an edge for Chicago.
The Bruins have gotten nearly 40% of their offensive production from one line—19 out of 50 total goals from David Krejci, Nathan Horton and Milan Lucic.
After that, the dropoff to their second line—Jagr/Bergeron/Marchand— is precipitous. 9 goals or 18%.
Chicago, on the other hand, has gotten balanced scoring from its top two lines: Kane, Bickell and Toews with 15 out of 47 goals (roughly 30%), and Hossa, Handzus and Sharp with 17 goals out of 47 (or about 38%).
‘Balanced scoring’ by itself would be kind of a lame, one-dimensional argument for why one team should win. But when you factor in balance on the defensive pairings, then you begin to see a more compelling argument.
When most writers, bloggers and commentators—not to mention fans—think about Chicago’s defense, they think: Keith and Seabrook. Which is fine as far as the top pairing (and that only some of the time). They also make the mistake of characterizing Seabrook as a big, stay at home type defenseman, and Keith as an offensive defenseman (a la Kris Letang of the Penguins). This is patently wrong.
The truth about the Hawk defense lies in a few other compelling statistics—some good and some bad.
They are arguably the best penalty killing defense in hockey—even better than the Bruins, no slouches themselves. And they are about equally as bad as the Bruins on the power play. In truth, both these defenses are defense-first. Chicago is more mobile, but their mobility is really all about quick puck transition and taking away time and space in their own end—not so much brilliant rushes up ice, or QB’ing the power play.
Another argument can be made Niklas Hjalmarsson became the Hawks #2 defenseman—eclipsing Seabrook— at some point in the regular season—and many would argue he has been the Hawks’ best defenseman throughout the regular season and playoffs.
And that, to me, could be the key to this series. Leaving aside the fact that Keith has not played this well since his Norris season in 2010, Hjalmarsson and Johnny Oduya were often out against the Kings’ best skaters—and basically shut them down. The oft-criticized Oduya, also, has basically been very strong in these playoffs.
Another key will be how well the Bruins can handle the Hawks top two lines.
Chara’s going to be Chara. But he and Dennis Seidenberg have averaged about 26:45 TOI in the playoffs. Chara is a machine who can churn and burn up to 30 minutes a night. But they have not had to chase the puck quite like they likely will have to versus Chicago.
Keith and Seabrook have averaged about 23 minutes, Hjalmarsson and Oduya about 22 minutes. Oduya and Hjalmarssoin are a team (defenseman) best +10 and +9 respectively.
That's balance and quality depth.
Like Chara, Keith is going to be Keith—a machine who can churn and burn up to 30 minutes a night—and the Bruins’ top line has not faced a combination as stingy as Keith and Seabrook yet in these playoffs. Not really even close.
And that is where I think this series could hinge. The Hawks seem to have slightly more quality depth in their second line (from a scoring perspective) and in their second pairing (from a defensive perspective). I'm not sure the Bruins have a "3rd" defenseman—and therefore a 2nd pairing—that is as good as Hjalmarsson has become this year.
So while you can argue Pittsburgh presented Boston similar offensive/scoring balance, they did not from the standpoint of defending.
More tomorrow,
JJ
Chicago Blackhawks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»